The prevalence and prevention of crosstalk: a multi-institutional study.

It is a common problem in psychology subject pools for past study participants to inform future participants of key experimental details (also known as crosstalk). Previous research (Edlund, Sagarin, Skowronski, Johnson, & Kutter, 2009) demonstrated that a combined classroom and laboratory treatment could significantly reduce crosstalk. The present investigation tested a laboratory-only treatment for the prevention of crosstalk at five universities, along with institutional-level moderators of crosstalk. Results indicated the presence of crosstalk at all universities and that the laboratory-based treatment was effective in reducing crosstalk. Importantly, crosstalk rates were higher (but successfully neutralized) in research pools with higher research credit requirements. Therefore, this research provides valuable guidance regarding crosstalk prevalence and its minimization by researchers.

Cultural stereotypes and personal beliefs about individuals with dwarfism.

Three studies assessed the content of cultural stereotypes and personal beliefs regarding individuals with dwarfism among "average height" (i.e., non-dwarf) individuals. In Studies 1 and 2, undergraduates from three separate institutions selected adjectives to reflect traits constituting both the cultural stereotype about dwarves and their own personal beliefs about dwarves (cf. Devine & Elliot, 1995). The most commonly endorsed traits for the cultural stereotype tended to be negative (e.g., weird, incapable, childlike); the most commonly endorsed traits for personal beliefs were largely positive (e.g., capable, intelligent, kind). In Study 3, undergraduates from two separate institutions used an open-ended method to indicate their personal beliefs about dwarves (cf. Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto, 1994). Responses contained a mixture of positive and negative characteristics, suggesting a greater willingness to admit to negative personal beliefs using the open-ended method.

Trait expectancies and stereotype expectancies affect person memory similarly in a jury context.

This experiment, a simulated trial study, examined whether trait expectancies and stereotype expectancies similarly affected memory for expectancy-relevant behaviors. Participants read a description of a defendant, which was followed by testimony that induced a trait or stereotype expectancy. After viewing the evidence items and giving a guilt judgment, the participants were asked to recall as many of the evidence items as they could and to complete a thought listing measure. The results showed that, when overtly applied to the defendant, trait expectancies and stereotype expectancies had similar effects, producing incongruity effects on recall. Additional analyses examining the participants' post-hoc reports of the thoughts that they had as they processed the behaviors provided little evidence that subjects attempted to reconcile items or attempted to reconcile the items with the expectancy.

On the road to self-perception: interpretation of self-behaviors can be altered by priming.

In 3 experiments, some participants read a story describing ambiguously mean behaviors performed by another person. Other participants read the story and imagined that they performed the behaviors. Results showed that (a) exposure to a conceptual priming manipulation caused assimilation effects in actor meanness judgments, regardless of whether the actor was self or other, (b) tasks designed neither to heighten self-concept accessibility nor to threaten the self moderated the effects of conceptual meanness primes on self-meanness judgments, and (c) this lack of moderation occurred despite considerable evidence of self-enhancement effects elsewhere in self-judgments. A fourth experiment examined the extent to which priming affected interpretations of real self or other behavior. Results were consistent with the idea that priming altered event interpretation and subsequent judgments but also suggested that judgments were influenced by self-enhancement motivation. Implications of the results for theorizing in personality and self-knowledge acquisition are discussed.

Male Sexual Jealousy: Lost Paternity Opportunities?

Numerous studies have shown that men experience relatively greater levels of jealousy in response to the sexual aspects of an infidelity (relative to women), whereas women experience relatively greater levels of jealousy in response to the emotional aspects of an infidelity (relative to men). The traditional explanation for this relationship suggests that men experience this greater level of jealousy due to threats of a loss of paternal certainty. In this article, we present three studies that demonstrate that men's differentially greater jealousy occurs in response to situations that threaten paternity opportunities. These results suggest that a loss of perceived paternity opportunities is the ultimate origin of men's increased jealousy in response to sexual infidelity.

Sex differences in jealousy: the (lack of) influence of researcher theoretical perspective.

The sex difference in jealousy is an effect that has generated significant controversy in the academic literature (resulting in two meta-analyses that reached different conclusions on the presence or absence of the effect). In this study, we had a team of researchers from different theoretical perspectives use identical protocols to test whether the sex difference in jealousy would occur across many different samples (while testing whether mate value would moderate the effect). In our samples, we found the sex difference in jealousy to occur using both forced choice and continuous measures, this effect appeared in several different settings, and, we found that mate value moderated participant responses. The results are discussed in light of the controversy surrounding the presence of the effect.